Dairy scientists are the Gregor Mendels of the genomics age, developing new methods for understanding the link between genes and living things, all while quadrupling the average cow's milk production since your parents were born.

Reuters.

While there are more than 8 million Holstein dairy cows in the United States, there is exactly one bull that has been scientifically calculated to be the very
best in the land. He goes by the name of Badger-Bluff Fanny Freddie.

Already, Badger-Bluff Fanny Freddie has 346 daughters who are on the books
and thousands more that will be added to his progeny count when they start producing milk. This is quite a career for a young animal: He was only born in 2004.

There is a reason, of course, that the semen that Badger-Bluff Fanny Freddie produces has become such a hot commodity in what one artificial-insemination company calls "today's fast paced cattle semen market." In January of 2009, before he
had a single daughter producing milk, the United States Department of Agriculture took a look at his lineage and more than 50,000 markers on his genome and declared him the best bull in the land. And, three years and 346 milk- and data-providing daughters later, it turns out that they were
right.

"When Freddie [as he is known] had no daughter records our equations predicted from his DNA that he would be the best bull," USDA research geneticist
Paul VanRaden emailed me with a detectable hint of pride. "Now he is the best progeny tested bull (as predicted)."

Data-driven predictions are responsible for a massive transformation of America's dairy cows. While other industries are just catching on to this whole
"big data" thing, the animal sciences -- and dairy breeding in particular -- have been using large amounts of data since long before VanRaden was
calculating the outsized genetic impact of the most sought-after bulls with a pencil and paper in the 1980s.

The bull market (heh) can be reduced to one key statistic, lifetime net merit, though there are many nuances that the single number cannot capture. Net merit
denotes the likely additive value of a bull's genetics. The number is actually denominated in dollars because it is an estimate of how much a bull's genetic
material will likely improve the revenue from a given cow. A very complicated equation
weights all of the factors that go into dairy breeding and -- voila -- you come out with this single number. For example, a bull that could help a cow make
an extra 1000 pounds of milk over her lifetime only gets an increase of $1 in net merit while a bull who will help that same cow produce a pound more protein
will get $3.41 more in net merit. An increase of a single month of predicted productive life yields $35 more.

When you add it all up, Badger-Fluff Fanny Freddie has a net merit of $792. No other proven sire ranks above $750 and only seven bulls in the country rank above $700. One might assume that this is largely because the bull can help the cows make more milk, but it's not! While breeders used to select for greater milk production, that's no longer considered the most important trait. For example, the number three bull in America
is named Ensenada Taboo Planet-Et. His predicted transmitting ability for milk production is +2323, more than 1100 pounds greater
than Freddie. His offspring's milk will likely containmore protein and fat as well. But his daughters' productive life would be shorter and their pregnancy rate is
lower. And these factors, as well as some traits
related to the hypothetical daughters' size and udder quality, trump Planet's impressive production stats.

One reason for the change in breeding emphasis is that our cows already produce tremendous amounts of milk relative to their forbears. In
1942, when my father was born, the average dairy cow produced less than 5,000 pounds of milk in its lifetime. Now, the average cow produces over 21,000 pounds of
milk. At the same time, the number of dairy cows has decreased from a high of 25 million around the end of World War II to fewer than nine
million today. This is an indisputable environmental win as fewer cows create less methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and require less land.

At the same time, it turns out that cow genomes are more complex than we thought: as milk production amps up, fertility drops. There's an art to balancing all the traits that go into optimizing a herd.

In a sense that's very real, information itself has transformed these animals. The information did not accomplish this feat on its own, of course. All of this technological and scientific change is occurring within the social context of American capitalism. Over the last few decades, the number of dairies has collapsed and the size of herds has increased. These larger operations are factory farms that are built to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system to generate profits. They benefit from economies of scale that allow them to bring in genomic specialists and use more expensive bull semen.

No matter how you apportion the praise or blame, the net effect is the same. Thousands of years of qualitative breeding on family-run farms begat cows producing a few thousand
pounds of milk in their lifetimes; a mere 70 years of quantitative breeding optimized to suit corporate imperatives quadrupled what all previous civilization had accomplished. And the crazy thing is, we're at the cusp of a new era in which genomic data starts to
compress the cycle of trait improvement, accelerating our path towards the perfect milk-production machine, also known as the Holstein dairy cow.

***

A botanical drawing of Mendel's pea plants. The Field Museum.

There are no more famous experiments in genetics than the ones undertaken by the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel on five acres in what is now the Czech
Republic from 1856 to 1863. Mendel bred 29,000 pea plants and discovered the most basic rules of genetics without any knowledge of the underlying
biochemical mechanics.

Smack dab in the middle of Mendel's experiments, Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published, but we don't have
any record of intellectual mingling between the two men. Even the idea of a gene as an irreducible unit of inheritance wasn't presented until
30 years after Mendel began his experiments. The term and field of genetics would not be fleshed out until William Bateson and company came along in the early 1900s. And its form, DNA, would not be proposed by James Watson
and Francis Crick with indispensable help from Rosalind Franklin until 90 years after his last pea plant died. All this to say: Mendel was ahead of his
time.

What he had going for him was a dedication to data, to quantification. His fundamental insight was statistical.

Here's the simple version of what he did. Mendel took pea plants that reliably produced purple or white flowers when they
self-pollinated. Then he crossbred them, carefully controlling how the plants reproduced. Now, one might expect that if you breed a pea plant with a purple flower and a pea plant with a white flower, you'd get progeny that were sort of
mauve, a mix of the two colors. But what Mendel found instead is that you either got purple flowers or white flowers. Even more amazingly, sometimes
breeding two purple flowers would yield a white flower. Among the first generation of crossbreeds, the mix of flower colors occurred at a roughly constant ratio of about 3:1, purple to white. If the traits of two plants were being mixed to generate the next generation, how could two purple flowers yield a
white flower? And why would this ratio arise?

Mendel took a conceptual leap and hypothesized that the plants had two possible copies of its plans (i.e. genes) to make flower color (or any of six other traits he
analyzed). If the plant received two of the dominant plan (purple), the flowers would, of course, be purple. If it received one of each, the dominant
plan would still reign. But if the plant received two recessive plans, then the flowers of that pea would be white.

The monk turned out to be right. For traits controlled by a single gene, things really do work as he predicted. Mendel's insights became part of the
central dogma of genetics. You can use the statistical method he used to calculate how likely someone is to get sickle cell anemia from her parents. In
most genetics classes, Mendel is where it all starts and for good reason.

But it turns out that Mendel's version of things doesn't actually give a very clear picture of the kinds of things we care about most. "Mendel studied a few traits that happened
to be controlled by a single gene, making the probabilities easier to figure out," the USDA's VanRaden said. "Animal breeders for many decades have
used models that assume most traits are influenced by thousands of genes with very small effects. Some [individual] genes do have detectable effects, but many
studies of plant and animal traits conclude that most of the genetic variation is from many little effects."

For dairy cows -- or humans, for that matter -- it's just not as simple as the dominant-recessive single-gene
paradigm that Mendel created. In fact, Mendel picked his model organism well. Its simplicity allowed him to focus in on the simplest possible genetic model
and figure it out. He could easily manipulate the plant breeding; he could observe key traits of the plant; and these traits happened to be controlled
by a single gene, so the math lay within human computational range. Pea plants were perfect for studying the basics of genetics.

With that in mind, allow me to suggest, then, that the dairy farmers of America, and the geneticists who work with them, are the Mendels of the genomic age. That makes
the dairy cow the pea plant of this exciting new time in biology. Last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, two of the most
successful bulls of all time had their genomes published.

This is a landmark in dairy herd genomics, but it's most significant as a sign that while genomics
remains mostly a curiosity for humans, it's already coming of age when it comes to cattle. It's telling that the cutting-edge genomics company Illumina
has precisely one applied market: animal science. They make a chip that measures 50,000 markers on the cow genome for attributes that control the
economically important functions of those animals.

A snippet from Illumina's animal science fact sheet.

***

Mendel may have worked with plants, the rules he revealed turned out to be universal for all living things. The same could be true of the statistical
rules that dairy scientists are learning about how to match up genomic data with the physical attributes they generate. The statistical rules that reflect the way dozens or hundreds of genes come together to make a cow likely to develop mastitis, say, may be formally similar to the rules that govern what makes people susceptible to schizophrenia or prone to living for a long time. Researchers like the University of Queensland's Peter Visscher are bringing the lessons of animal science to bear on our favorite animal, ourselves.

Want to live for a very long time? Well, we hope to discover the group of genes that are responsible for longevity. The problem is that you have
genomic data over here and you have phenotypic data, i.e. how things actually are, over there. What you need, then, is some way of translating between
these two realms. And it's that matrix, that series of transformations, that animal scientists have been working on for the past decade.

It turned out they were in the perfect spot to look for
statistical rules. They had databases of old and new bull semen. They
had old and new
production data. In essence, it wasn't that difficult to
generate rules for transforming genomic data into real-world predictions.
Despite -- or because of -- the effectiveness of traditional
breeding techniques, molecular biology has been applied in the field for
years in different ways. Given that breeders were trying to discover
bulls' hidden genetic profiles by evaluating the traits in their offspring that could be measured,
it just made sense to start
generating direct data about the animals' genomes.

"Each of the bulls
on the sire list, we have 50,000 genetic markers. Most of those,
we have 700,000," the USDA's VanRaden said.
"Every month we get another 12,000 new calves, the DNA readings
come in and we send the predictions out. We have a total of 200,000
animals with DNA
analysis. That's why it's been so easy. We had such a good
phenotype file and we had DNA stored on all these bulls."

They had all that information because for decades, scientists have been taking data from cows to
figure out which bulls produced the best offspring. Typically, a bull
with a
promising pedigree would reach sexual maturity and his semen
would be used to impregnate a selection of about 50 test cows. Those
daughters would grow
up and start producing milk a few years later. The data from
those cows would be used to calculate the value of that now "proven"
bull. People called the process
"progeny testing" and it did not require that breeders knew the
exact genetic makeup of a bull. Instead, scientists and breeders could
simply say: We
do not know the underlying constellations of genes that make
this bull so valuable, but we do know how much milk his kids will
produce. They learned to
use that data to predict who the best bulls were.

"[In the past], we combined performance data -- milk yield, protein yield, confirmation data -- with pedigree
information, and ran it through a fairly sophisticated computing gobbledygook," another USDA scientist Curt Van Tassel told a group of dairy farmers.
"It spit out at the other end predicted transmitting ability,
predicted genetic values of whatever sort. Now what we're trying to do
is tweak that
black box by introducing genomic data."

There are many different ways you could model the mapping of 50,000
genetic markers onto a dozen performance traits, especially when
you have to consider all kinds of environmental factors. So the
dairy breeders have been developing and testing statistical models to
take all this stuff
into account and spit out good predictions of which bulls herd
managers should ultimately select.The real
promise is not that genomic data will actually be better than the
ground-truth
information generated from real offspring (though it might be),
but rather that the estimates will be close enough to real but save 3 to
4 years per generation. If you
don't have to wait for daughters to start cranking out milk,
then you can shave those years off the improvement cycle, speeding it up
several times.

Nowadays breeders can choose between "genomic bulls," which have
been evaluated based purely on their genes and "proven bulls," for
which real
world data is available. Discussions among dairy breeders show
that many are beginning to mix in younger bulls with good-looking
genomic data into the
breeding regimens. How well has it gone? The first of the bulls who were bred from their genetic profiles alone, are receiving their initial production data. So far, it
seems as if the genomic estimates were a little high, but more accurate than traditional methods alone.

The unique dataset and success of dairy breeders now has other scientists sniffing around their findings. Leonid Kruglyak, a genomics professor at
Princeton, told me that "a lot of the statistical techniques and methodology" that connect phenotype and genotype were developed by animal breeders. In
a sense, they are like codebreakers. If you know the rules of encoding. it's not difficult to put information in one end and have it pop out the other
as a code. But if you're starting with the code, that's a brutally difficult problem. And it's the one that diary geneticists have been working on.

Their work could reach outside the medical realm to help us understand human's evolution as well. For example, Kruglyak said, human population geneticists want to figure out how to explain the remarkable lack of genetic variance between human
beings. "The typical [genetic] variation among humans is one change in a thousand," he said. "Chimps, though they obviously have a much smaller population
now, have several fold higher genetic diversity." How could this be? Researchers hypothesize that human beings once went through a bottleneck where
there were very few humans relative both to the current human population and the chimp population. Few humans meant that the gene pool was limited at
some point in the pre-historical but fairly recent past. We've never recovered the diversity we might have had.

***

The number-one ranked bull in the world. Kathy DeBruin.

It might seem that Badger-Bluff Fanny Freddie is the pinnacle of the Holstein bull. He's been the top bull since the day his genetic markers showed up in the USDA database and his real-world performance has backed up his genome's claims. But he's far from the best bull that science can imagine.

John Cole, yet another
USDA animal improvement scientist, generated an estimate of the perfect bull
by choosing
the optimal observed genetic sequences and hypothetically
combining them. He found that the optimal bull would have a net merit
value of $7,515, which absolutely blows any current bull out of the
water. In other words, we're nowhere near creating the perfect milk machine.

The problem, of course, is that genomes cannot really be cut and
pasted together from the best bits. "When you go extremely far for one
trait, you're
going to upset some of the other traits," Vanraden said.
Breeding is a messy (i.e. biological) process, no matter how
technologically sophisticated the
front end. After decades of breeding cows for milk production,
people realized (to their dismay) that the ability to generate milk and
the ability to
have babies were negatively correlated. The more milk you tried
to order up, the less babies your herd was likely to have. While we're
nowhere near
the hypothetical limit for Holstein bull value, we do now know
that nature is not so easily transformed without some deleterious
effects. We may have factory farms, but these machines are still flesh and blood.

Except for Badger-Fluff Fanny Freddie and his fellow bulls, that is. Freddie is a disembodied
creature, an animal that is more important as data than as meat or
muscle. Though he's been mentioned in
thousands of web pages and dozens of trade industry articles, no one
mentions where he was born or where the animal currently lives. He is,
for all intents and purposes except for his own, genetic material that
comes in the handy form of semen. His thousands
of daughters will never smell him and his physical location
doesn't matter to anyone. He will be replaced very soon by the next top
bull, as subject to the pressures of our economic system as the last
version of the iPhone.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.